Sajjad Khan Nasarulla Khan And Anr vs. The State Of Maharashtra
Held
The Court held that the applicants deserved to be granted pre-arrest bail. The reasoning was based on the prima facie assessment that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature, involving the payment of stamp duty, GST, and other requisite fees for a property transaction. The Court noted that the complainant had not appeared to oppose the application. The observations made were restricted to the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and were not to be considered for quashing the FIR, discharge application, or at the time of trial. The Court allowed the application, directing that the applicants be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with sureties, and requiring them to report to the police station as and when called.
Facts
This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Sajjad Khan Nasarulla Khan and Sau Farida Sajjad Khan (applicants) against the State of Maharashtra and another respondent. The dispute appears to stem from a property transaction where the complainant alleged the applicant was insisting on the complainant taking possession of a flat without paying requisite fees. The applicants, on the other hand, claimed they were willing to hand over the flat provided the complainant paid stamp duty, GST, and other fees. The High Court had previously noted the matter as a civil dispute and granted time for the complainant to engage a lawyer. On the hearing date, no one appeared for the complainant.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature of the dispute. The applicants argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, concerning the payment of stamp duty, GST, and other fees related to a property transaction. They contended that the complainant was refusing to pay these dues and was instead complaining to the police. The applicants submitted that they were willing to hand over possession of the flat upon payment of the outstanding amounts. The State, represented by the APP, did not present any specific arguments against the grant of anticipatory bail, other than implicitly opposing it by virtue of the criminal proceedings initiated.
Sections Cited
Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 31.aba2208.17.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTIICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2208 OF 2017 1 Sajjad Khan Nasarulla Khan 2 Sau Farida Sajjad Khan. ... Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Uday B. Nighot, advocate for Applicants. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for State. Mr. Sachin P. Nimbalkar, Lashkar Police Station, Pune. CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : FEBRUARY 22, 2018 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for State. 2 On 31/1/2018 the complainant was present in the court and had sought time to engage an advocate to oppose grant of prearrest Talwalkar 1/3
2 31.aba2208.17.doc bail in favour of the applicants. This Court was prima facie of the opinion that it is a civil dispute and could be settled between the parties and therefore, the Court had granted time. Today, none appears for the complainant. 3 Learned Counsel for the applicants upon instructions submits that in fact, the applicants would hand over the flat subject to the condition that he pays stamp duty, GST and further requisite f
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.